MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I'd like to give you a report on
the President's day, and then I have an opening statement I'd like to
make about homeland security. The President this morning spoke with
President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea. The President welcomed the
September 18 North-South groundbreaking ceremony for construction of
two railroad lines across the DMZ. The two leaders agreed that real
progress with the North depends on full resolution of the security
issues on the Korean Peninsula, including the North possession and
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.

The President told President Kim that the United States would be
sending an envoy to the North at an early date. President Kim
expressed full support for the President's U.N. speech and the U.S.-led
effort to establish necessary resolutions on Iraq in the U.N. Security
Council.

Following the President's early morning call to President Kim, the
President received his briefings from the CIA and the FBI. And then
the President had a meeting with the President of Colombia. During the
meeting the President informed President Uribe that he will be
providing the enhanced benefits of the Andean Trade Preferences Act to
Colombia, as well as to Bolivia and to Peru. This action will further
promote U.S. commercial relations with these nations.

The administration is working with the government of Ecuador in
order to be able to recommend Ecuador for designation in the near
future. The administration is working closely with the government of
Ecuador in order to be able to recommend Ecuador for designation, as I
said.

President Bush reaffirmed the administration's strong commitment to
helping Colombia meet its financial needs, underscoring that we are
working with the IMF, the World Bank, and the InterAmerican Development
Bank to assure an increased flow of financial and developmental
assistance.

And then the President had a variety of meetings with members of
Congress today to help broker an agreement on the energy legislation
that is in conference on the Hill. The President has urged the
conferees to continue to work together so that we can make America more
energy-independent and have more conservation programs.

And then, finally, the President will, this evening, speak to the
National Republican Senatorial Committee Annual dinner.

On the question of homeland security, this is an issue that the
President would very much like for the Congress to be able to
complete. He believes it is vital for the protection of our nation to
have a homeland security bill put in place. And he wants to work with
Democrats and Republicans alike to make this happen.

There is an amendment that has been offered that is known as the
Nelson-Breaux-Chafee amendment, that in the President's judgment, does
not match the reality of the amendment's language. It's been described
as a compromise; it is not. It is exactly what the special interests
are trying to persuade, or tried to persuade the House of
Representatives to pass in July, an effort which was defeated in the
House on a bipartisan vote.

Under this amendment, the President would have less national
security authority in the Department of Homeland Security than he has
in every other department or agency of the federal government today.
For as long as there have been unions in the federal government, the
President has had the authority to exclude certain offices from
collective bargaining for reasons of national security. Every
President since John Kennedy has exercised the authority with
discretion and with care.

A few government unions have been trying to roll back this
longstanding presidential authority, using the homeland bill as their
vehicle. This amendment would accomplish this rollback by dramatically
restricting the President's existing authority. The proposal is a
rollback and a restriction at a time when the President needs
flexibility and authority to fight terror.

And with that, I'm happy to take your questions. Ron.

Q The President, whenever he talks about homeland defense on the
stump, says something to the effect of the Senate is more interested in
special interests than in the interests of the security of the American
people. On Monday, and at least one other time this month, he has said
instead that the Senate is more interested in special interests in
Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people.
When he said that Monday, and he said it in Kentucky, did he misspeak?
Or does he really believe that Democrats are not interested in the
security of the American people?

MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, this is a policy debate, where people have
said of the President, in terms of his positions on these flexibility
measures that I just cited, they have differences with the President.
And the President has differences, and he's working with the Democrats
and Republicans to bring people together so that we can have a homeland
security department. And that's where the President is on this.

Now, in terms of what the President said, I'm aware of the debate
that is taking place on Capitol Hill, and the accusations that have
been made about the President on this. And now is a time for everybody
concerned to take a deep breath, to stop finger-pointing, and to work
well together to protect our national security and our homeland
defense.

That's how the President approaches this issue. And I'm aware of
what was said on the floor by Senator Daschle and in his news
conference, as well. And at his news conference, Senator Daschle
admitted that his floor statement was not based on what the President
or the Vice President had said, but instead was based on newspaper
accounts, not the actual statements made. And the Senator cited a
headline -- I'm going to go through this, Ron -- the Senator cited
the headline saying, "Cheney talks about war, electing Taff would aid
war effort."

Vice President Cheney's totally innocuous quote, delivered at the
end of a lengthy speech about President Bush's entire agenda included
the economy, national and homeland security, trade promotion authority,
energy, common-sense judges and fiscal restraint. The last sentence of
the Vice President's speech was the following: "President Bush and I
are very grateful for the opportunity to serve our country. We thank
you for your support -- not just for our efforts, but for candidates
like Adam Taff, who will make a fine partner for us in the work
ahead." That's what the Vice President said. Hardly the stuff of
politics.

Senator Daschle, citing another press account said -- and this is
what you just referred to, Ron; this is why I go through this -- this
is the quote that was given on the floor of the Senate earlier today.
"The President is quoted in the Washington Post this morning as saying
that the Democratic controlled Senate is not interested in the security
of the American people." Despite the assertion that Senator Daschle
was quoting precisely -- as he said at his news conference -- from
the press, that's a misstatement of what the President said. The
President never in that speech referred to the Democratic controlled
Senate.

Here is what the President said, and this is what the President
believes: "So I ask Congress to give me the flexibility necessary to
be able to deal with the true threats of the 21st century by being able
to move the right people to the right place at the right time, so we
can better assure America that we're doing everything possible. The
House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interest
in Washington and not interested in the security of the American
people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does
not allow this President, and future Presidents, to better keep the
American people secure."

And the President continued. "And people are working hard in
Washington to get it right in Washington, both Republicans and
Democrats. See, this isn't a partisan issue, this is an American
issue, this is an issue which is vital to our future. It will help us
determine how secure we'll be."

That's what the President thinks. And make no mistake, he feels
very strongly about the need for the Senate, the complete Senate,
everybody in it -- Democrat, Republicans, independents -- to join
together to protect our national security and to pass it. If it is not
passed, it will have implications for our homeland security, and that's
what the President feels very strongly.

Q I appreciate that. But the question wasn't about what Senator
Daschle said; it's what the President said in that speech and in one in
Kentucky, where he says -- I'm taking his words literally -- "the
Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not
interested in the security of the American people." Did the President
mean to say that the Senate is not interested in the security of the
American people, or did he misspeak?

MR. FLEISCHER: There is no doubt about it. If this does not pass
into law because special interest provisions will have prevailed, the
Senate will not have acted in the best interests of the American
people. And the interests of the special interests will have been put
ahead, and the result will be that the Senate will not have acted in
that interest, for the national security.

Q Sorry, I don't want to be argumentative here, but you're not
responding to the question, because that's not what the President
said. The President said, "the Senate is more interested in special
interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the
American people." Did he mean to say that the Senate is not interested
in the security of the American people, or did he misspeak? It's one
of the two.

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is stating the fact that unless and
until this passes, the Senate will not have acted in the interests of
the security of the American people. Homeland security is just that;
it is the security of the American people.

Q That's not what he said. He said, "the Senate is not
interested in the security of the American people." He didn't say "if"
or "whether" or "but."

MR. FLEISCHER: He made that --

Q He said, "the Senate is more interested in special interests
in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American
people." Did he mean to say that, or did he misspeak?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's no question that in the event that
this does not pass because the special interests, who are fighting to
take away the flexibility that every agency currently has in terms of
the President's ability to act for national security -- if that is
deprived and taken away from the President, and rolled back, then the
President's conclusion will have been that the special interests
prevailed over the security of the American people, and that in that
Senate action, that the Senate action will have shown, by failure to
pass it, that the special interests prevailed over the security
interests of the country.

Q Will that show that special interests have prevailed over the
interests of the American people? Or will it show that, again, in the
President's own words, "the Senate is more interested in special
interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the
American people"?

MR. FLEISCHER: We won't know until the vote takes place.

Q But does he stand by that remark or not? He didn't --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's clear --

Q -- he didn't qualify it. He said --

MR. FLEISCHER: What the President wants to --

Q -- "the Senate is more interested in special interests in
Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people."
Does he stand by that comment, or not?

MR. FLEISCHER: What the President is trying to do is bring the
Democrats and Republicans together, as he said in the rest of his
remarks, when he said that this is not a partisan issue, it is an issue
vital to our future. It will determine how secure we will be. And
there's no getting around the fact that if the Senate does not pass it
--

Q That's why I'm wondering if he misspoke --

MR. FLEISCHER: -- that the security of our country will not have
been protected.

Q That's why I'm wondering if he misspoke, because it doesn't
jibe with what he said a couple sentences later.

MR. FLEISCHER: I can only interpret it for you as I have.

Terry. Terry, and then we'll go to Bill.

Q He's trying to bring Democrats and Republicans together
essentially by saying if you don't agree with me, then I'm going to use
the bully pulpit and tell America you don't want to protect the
American people.

MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, the President has also, in this debate, met
with a policy difference with the Democrats, as well, who say about the
President that he is stopping homeland security from going through if
the President sticks to his position. This is a policy debate, it's a
legitimate policy debate, and the President wants to make certain that
in the end that a compromise can be reached. And that's why he's
working with the Democrats and Republicans to do so.

Q Well, that's a heck of a way of trying to reach a compromise
with somebody who disagrees with you, by finger-pointing and saying,
those guys don't want to protect the security of the American people.

MR. FLEISCHER: If homeland security is not passed in the Senate,
it will be true that the Senate will not have acted to protect the
American people's security. That's why it is such a vital matter, and
that's why there are leaders in the Senate in both parties who have
joined with the President to get it passed. The President has
indicated what he did not out of any malicious feelings about the
Senate or any senators, but out of an overriding desire to make certain
that the Senate finishes its business, because protecting the homeland
is our top priority. And it has security implications.

Q So the President has not second thoughts about using the
terminology, the security of the American people? Does he wish he had
put it differently?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President, again, said that -- you can just
quote him -- the House responded, but the Senate is more interested
in the special interests in Washington, and not interested in the
security of the American people. He won't accept it if it doesn't
protect security. And then he praised the Democrats and Republicans.
This is a choice that the House -- the Senate has to make about
the votes that they cast.

Ivan.

Q It's very hard to get passed the notion that he's not
interested in the security of the American people.

MR. FLEISCHER: We have a lot of people with their hands up.

Q I know, but --

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm happy to keep it in the front row. If
everybody agrees, we'll just stay in the front row.

Campbell.

Q No apology, Ari --

Q We can go back to that in a minute. I have another question.
Yesterday in the briefing, you said that the information you have has
said al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld was asked about linkages between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein
this morning. He said very definitively that, yes, he believes there
are. And then the President said, talking about al Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein, the danger is that they work in concert. Is the President
saying that they are working in concert, that there is a relationship?
Do you have evidence that supports that?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President is saying that's the danger. The
President has repeatedly said that the worst thing that could happen is
for people -- the world's worst dictators with the world's worst
weapons of mass destruction to work in concert with terrorists such as
al Qaeda, who have shown an ability to attack the United States. And
that's what the President has said.

Q So why -- when Rumsfeld was saying, yes, there is a linkage
between the two, what is he talking about?

MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, al Qaeda is operating inside Iraq. And
the point is, in the shadowy world of terrorism, sometimes there is no
precise way to have definitive information until it is too late. And
we've seen that in the past. And so the risk is that al Qaeda
operating in Iraq does present a security threat, and it's cause for
concern. And I think it's very understandably so.

If you're searching, Campbell, again, for the smoking gun, again I
say what Secretary Rumsfeld said -- the problem with smoking guns is
they only smoke after they're fired.

Q I'm not looking for a smoking gun. I'm just trying to figure
out how you make that conclusion, because the British, the Russians,
people on the Hill that you all have briefed about all this stuff say
that there isn't a linkage, that they don't believe that al Qaeda is
there working in conjunction in any way with Saddam Hussein. And there
is a mountain of comments, both public and private statements that
Osama bin Laden has made about Saddam, calling him a bad Muslim,
suggesting that there would be no way that the two would ever connect.
So I just -- if there's something, if you have some evidence that
supports this, I'm just wondering why --

MR. FLEISCHER: What supports what I just said is that the
President fears that the two can get together. That's what the
President has said, and that's one of the reasons that he feels so
strongly about the importance of fighting the war on terror.

Q So does Rumsfeld have some information that the President
doesn't, that they are, in fact, working together now?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm going to take a little more detailed look
at anything that you've got there. I haven't seen a verbatim quote, so
I'll take a look at that.

Q It seems that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is ignoring
the recently passed Security Council resolution, and he is maintaining
his siege around Yasser Arafat's headquarters. Why does the President
continue to support Israel, even though tacitly saying that he condemns
Israel, but in short, on the bottom line, he continues to support
Israel -- why does he continue to support him when Iraq is being
blamed by the President for doing exactly the same thing, for violating
the Security Council resolutions?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think you have to be very careful when you equate
Iraq with any other nation, and say Israel and Iraq are the same, when
they are not. If you look at Resolutions 242 and 338, Resolution 242
and 338 explicitly call for a political settlement, a political
dialogue as the underpinning of all the resolutions that subsequently
followed that refer back to 242 and 338. Not the case in Iraq. In
Iraq's decade of defiance of the U.N. resolutions which explicitly
called on Iraq not to have a political settlement with their weapons of
mass destruction, but disarm and destroy them. You cannot equate the
two.

The President does feel strongly, however, about the need for
Israel to listen and to heed the call and to make certain that its
efforts don't hurt the cause of reform in Palestinian Authority. The
President has spoken out about that, directly in opposition to Israel
on that matter.

Q Ari, after the President met with energy conferees,
Congressman Tauzin outlined a possible compromise that he sees on the
ANWR issue that would involve scaling back the area to be explored and
increasing the amount of land that would be protected. What was the
President's reaction and is there a compromise that the White House is
pursuing on the issue?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President's reaction is that he wants to help
the conferees to come together and get an agreement. Other people said
that not one acre of ANWR can be opened, not one. People talked about
if they could scale back the ANWR proposal so it was just one acre,
would it be acceptable to the other side in this debate. And people on
the other side of the debate said, no.

And so this remains an issue -- as many issues do typically
become at the end of the year, issues in the conferences that, as the
end of the year pressures build and as Congress gets ready to finally
adjourn, many of these issues do get resolved at the last minute.
We'll see if this is one, or not. There are many interesting debates
underway in that energy conference, in addition to the electricity
title and Price Anderson concerning nuclear authorities, nuclear
development, in addition to the renewables and the conservation
provisions that the President has asked the Congress to pass.

Q Is there a compromise that the President is pursuing in the
ANWR --

MR. FLEISCHER: We'll see. The President hopes that they will be
able to reach an agreement. Certainly I am not going to, in public,
discuss anything they may be discussing as part of an effort to bring
people together. That's best done in the conference in order to
resolve these differences.

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't believe the President has finger-pointed.
The President has talked about the importance of getting Democrats and
Republicans to work together to resolve the differences on homeland
security. There are policy differences and the policy differences
should be resolved and they should be resolved without acrimony.

Q Saying the Senate is not interested in the security of the
American people is not finger-pointing?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President again has talked about the vital
importance of passage of homeland security. I think there's no
question and no doubt about it, if the Senate was not to pass homeland
security, do you think there would be a newspaper in the country that
would say, Senate fails to pass homeland security? Homeland security
is now equated with protecting the country, and that's stating the
obvious.

Q Would there be a paper in the country that --

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry. Ron, we'll come back if we have time.

Q One other thing on another topic. This week, the President
had his second fundraiser for John Thune, and I'm wondering why does
there seem to be a focus on this race? Is it possibly because the
result could be damaging to Daschle, who is a possible presidential
contender? Or is there a particular focus on --

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the President believes very strongly in
working to elect people who share his agenda. The President thinks
it's very important to elect people in both the House and the Senate
who will support what he is focusing on with the Congress, to pass
legislation to secure the economy, to create more jobs, to pass welfare
reform, to pass a budget, which the Senate has not done this year.
Every vote makes a difference, and the President is hoping to elect
people who support his agenda.

Q Ari, can I come back to what seems to have emerged as the
sticking point in the homeland security legislation in the Senate?
Senator Durbin on the floor brought up the point that no one asked for
union cards when New York City police and firefighters were rushing up
into the World Trade Center. As you know, the Secret Service --
there's about two dozen law enforcement agencies here in this town.
All of them are unionized. Most municipal police and fire departments
are unionized.

MR. FLEISCHER: Right.

Q Can you tell us why public safety among the first responders
seems to function in an organized labor environment, but what the
concern would be on the federal level if these people were unionized in
the Office of National -- excuse me -- Homeland Security?

MR. FLEISCHER: They have every right to be unionized, and they are
unionized, and under the new department they would remain unionized.
So I think you've misstated what the debate is about. They will stay
unionized.

Q I understand what the debate is about --

MR. FLEISCHER: The whole issue is -- I'm sorry, the whole issue
here deals with the existing waiver authority for the President at a
time that he, like all his predecessors going back to John Kennedy,
would deem it necessary to have certain waivers for national security
interest. President Carter did that with the defense -- with the
Drug Enforcement Agency. It's been done in the past in terms of
previous Presidents' judgments about how to protect the national
interest.

What's really at stake here is these current provisions that the
President is already empowered to have, vis-a-vis, say, for example,
the Border Patrol at the Department of Justice -- if somebody today
shows up for work at the Department of Justice at Border Patrol, they
can belong to a union, they can have the union management, and the
collective bargaining rights can be waived today if the President
determines it's necessary for national security.

What the debate is now about is taking that exact right away from
the President when these very same people who signed up for the Border
Patrol jobs move across the street to the Department of Homeland
Security. Why does it work today for these people and the unions in
which they currently serve the nation well, in the Border Patrol, the
Department of Justice, and every other agency where it's found, but it
would not longer work, it needs to be taken away from the President and
from these workers if they move to the Department of Homeland
Security? That's why it's a rollback of the authority the President
currently has.

Q So if it's done differently, if the language is in there to
preserve the President's right, then he is not opposed to collective
bargaining units; is that what you're saying?

MR. FLEISCHER: That we're trying to work out the appropriate
language now so that a compromise can be reached. And, as I indicated,
the amendment that has been authored is a nonstarter with the
President.

MR. FLEISCHER: That's why I said that this is a time for everybody
concerned to take a deep breath, to stop the finger-pointing, and to
remember why we're all here. And that's to work together to pass a
department of homeland security to protect the country.

Q So will the President at least clarify what he meant by the
statements? I know you did, but does he feel a need to clarify?

MR. FLEISCHER: Listen, I think people have to understand, it can
happen that somebody misreads the newspapers and has a misunderstanding
of what the President said. And in the Senator's remarks he clearly
was upset because he thought the President was talking about Democrats
when the President was not; he thought the Vice President was talking
about something that the Vice President did not say.

And so it's important for the President -- and the President
thinks this is important for everybody on the Hill to hear -- is this
is the time, this is the exact time, as the Congress winds down, for
everybody to work together and to take a deep breath.

Q With all due respect, you're misstating what the President
said, Ari.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly what Senator Daschle said in his
speech, in which he asked the President to apologize, he had a
misunderstanding of what was in today's papers, and --

Q Not in today's papers, but in statements that the President
made earlier that Ron referred to.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think, again, when the statement was --
that the Senator talked about on the floor, the Senator cited a
headline saying, "Cheney talks about war; electing Taff would aid war
effort." Nobody here writes the headlines. I don't think there's
anything that the Vice President said, as I just read it to you -- he
said, "We thank you for your support, not just for our efforts, but for
candidates like Adam Taff, who will make a fine partner for us in the
work ahead." What's wrong with saying that?

And I would encourage anybody who wants to see exactly what the
President said to go to the White House web page, and you can see the
President's remarks in their entirety on the transcripts at
whitehouse.gov. And people can see it and judge it for itself.

Q Ari, two quick questions. One, if President Bush agrees with
the U.S. Ambassador to India, Robert Blackwell, who said that despite
President Bush's meeting with Musharraf in New York and -- in India
and Kashmir, especially during especially during elections -- went
up rather than a reduction. And also, he warned Pakistan that
Musharraf is lying by saying that elections were rigged and all that,
and he says I approve the elections -- in Kashmir, and they are fair
and free.

MR. FLEISCHER: Goyle, as you know, when the President met with
President Musharraf in New York -- and I made this point to you
immediately after the meeting last week, and this week as well -- the
President reiterated to President Musharraf the importance of adhering
to democracy in Pakistan and supporting the rule of law. And that
remains what the President thinks.

Q Just to follow, on Pakistan --

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm going try to keep it moving, because we have a
lot of people up with hands in the back, and we'll be here for three
hours if we don't get to them.

Q Ari, does the President see or did he read Senator Daschle's
comments on the floor? And, if so, would you please share with us his
reaction?

MR. FLEISCHER: I've shared with you his reaction. My statement
reflects what the President thinks.

homeland security. The President's remarks were not about the war
in Iraq. The President's remarks were about homeland security. Again,
I think when you take a look at what was said, it was put into a
context which did not match what the President said.

Q What about the larger question of the degree to which he talks
about the war in political fundraisers? Can we have your assurance
that he's not going to campaign on the war this fall?

MR. FLEISCHER: You've heard the President repeatedly say that he
wants to work with Democrats and Republicans to protect the country.
And the President is going to continue to say that message at all
events that he attends, because he thinks it's important, it's part of
his job, he was elected by the country for the purpose of providing
national security, homeland security now, and economic security. All
of that is what the President does, and the President will talk about
it.

Q Well, does he think it's fair game as a political issue?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I don't know what you mean by "a political
issue." The President approaches it as a matter of substance. And the
President approaches that as part of his job duty; that's what the
President does. And I don't think anybody is suggesting that the
President of the United States should be barred from talking about the
duties of his job.

Q Ari, at the beginning of the briefing you mentioned that a
U.S. envoy is going the North Korea. And I was wondering if you could
expand on that? What will the envoy be talking about? In the past,
the President has labeled North Korea part of the axis of evil. Does
that mean that we have -- that you foresee a diplomatic opening to
North Korea, that we could negotiate with them?

MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing has changed in the President's thinking
about President Kim Chong-il and the North Korean leader's starvation
of his own people, the militarization efforts that he's leading, the
massive number of conventional weapons that he has on the border with
South Korea, as well as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

But, as you know, the President has said that the United States was
prepared to meet with North Korea any time, anyplace. And there could
have been earlier progress made with North Korea, until North Korea
attacked a South Korean vessel and sank it last summer.

Secretary Powell met with his counterpart, the North Korean Foreign
Minister, on one of the Secretary's recent trips to Europe.* And the
State Department will have additional information about this trip. And
I think that you can anticipate that the President's message about
North Korea assuming its proper place in the world community cannot
happen until North Korea stops its proliferation, stops its starvation
of its people. But the President has said he'd talk any time,
anyplace, and this is a helpful development.

Q So the initial message will be North Korea should reform its
ways before further progress can be made?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in order for North Korea to feed its people,
it would be helpful if they reformed their ways. Their current system
is a failure, and it has failed its own people more than anybody else.
Look at the remarkable, dramatic progress in South Korea compared to
North Korea, and it's a real reflection of what a difference a form of
government can mean to the health and the welfare of the citizens of
each country.

* in Brunei

Q Ari, Daschle also mentioned in his speech this diskette that
was found in LaFayette Park that reportedly contained advice from Karl
Rove to Republican strategists to "focus on the war." Can you tell us
what the context of those comments were? And if Karl Rove is, in fact,
telling Republican strategists to focus on the war?

MR. FLEISCHER: Listen, I think that within various districts,
people are going to come to their own conclusions and judgments about
what issues they want to talk about. And as I indicated, I don't think
anybody is saying that it is inappropriate for anybody in either party
to talk about issues foreign and domestic, peace and war, from either
side of the issue. If somebody wants to make a position and say that
they oppose what the President is doing, that is entirely their right
in our democratic system. And I think that you may see candidates in a
variety of places in both parties express their opinions, some for the
President, some against the President, in both parties.

Q But you're not disputing that Karl Rove may have given that
advice?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have not seen this diskette, and so -- I've
seen media stories about it, but I have not seen it. But again, I
think it should not surprise anybody that people in this country are
free to talk about domestic and foreign issues as they see fit in their
campaigns.

Q Ari, why doesn't the President talk about the economy anymore
unless the pool asks him about it?

MR. FLEISCHER: You've been at the President's speeches. How many
times have you heard the President say -- just this week, he made
news by saying that continuing resolutions that the Congress would have
to pass have to be clean, they cannot contain all this new spending.
The President has talked about one of the best ways to help the economy
is to stop all the excessive spending that Congress is trying to do.

The President talks about it every speech, David. You're there,
you hear the speeches. I don't control the coverage of his speeches,
but you know as well as I do, the President always talks about the
economy and economic security in his speeches.

Q Isn't there a difference, though, between talking about the
budget in a political context? He doesn't talk about, any more that
I've heard, about ways to improve the economy, the economy's in
trouble, we need to fix it. It's all about the budget.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President talks about passage of
terrorism insurance, which is legislation that is pending in the
Congress that would create jobs. I think the quote the President uses
in his speeches, that I know you heard just two days ago, is the need
to help hard-hats find jobs. So I'm sorry, but I do think the premise
of your question doesn't quite match what the President's been saying.

Q Can you talk about tomorrow's speech?

MR. FLEISCHER: Sarah.

Q Ari, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is opposing the
nomination of Miguel Estrada to a judgeship on the Federal Court of
Appeals. Since the members of the Hispanic Caucus are all Democrats,
is this just partisan politics?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, unfortunately, the nominating process for
judges has become increasingly partisan, and the President regrets
that. Miguel Estrada is an outstanding nominee. The President
strongly supports him, and he hopes that he will be passed. This is
very unfortunate, that a group of Democrats have taken this position.

Q A few days ago, Senator Lott said that because of the focus on
needing to get appropriations bills completed and homeland security, as
well as an Iraq resolution, he did not think it would be possible to
address pension security, nor any tax incentives this year. Do you
agree with his assessment that because of the focus on foreign policy
issues, it has to be done at the expense of domestic priorities?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think there has been plenty of time all year for
the Senate to focus on these matters. And the Senate has,
unfortunately, let the clock run down so much to the end that they are
even talking about the need to come back in a lame duck session.

The Senate was scheduled, by law, to pass a budget by April 15th.
For the first time in the 28 years that the Senate has had a rule
mandating a budget, they have failed to pass one. First time since
1974 the Senate has failed to pass a budget. So the Senate has had
plenty of time for these important domestic and economic issues. And
when it comes to passage of a budget, when it comes to welfare reform,
when it comes to a ban on cloning, when it comes to terrorism
insurance, faith-based legislation -- these are all issues that
progress can be made and should have been made. And the Senate has
done it to itself, and has run out of time.

Q With respect to the energy conferees -- sorry -- Senator
Baucus indicated that he believed a deal could be struck in the tax
incentive area in the $15 billion range, which is about half what the
House has in its version and about $5 billion more than you would
like. Would that be acceptable?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I'm not going to negotiate the terms
of a conference agreement in public. That's something that is best
done by the conferees, along with the administration. But the
President did make clear that he does support -- the tax provisions
that the administration sent up were focused on conservation and the
development of renewable energy. And that's what the President has
asked the conferees to focus on.

Q Ari, you were just saying that the President understands that
candidates on the stump want to talk about the war in various guises,
opposing or supporting, perhaps, what the administration is doing. I
want to make sure I understand -- is there some difference between
the way they want to talk about the war and the way senators may want
to talk about making a better bill for homeland security, in terms of
the President's willingness to accept that as an idea that's not
necessarily against the security of the American people, or the
security --

MR. FLEISCHER: No, on the resolution that's currently being
drafted on the Hill, the Senate leadership, including Senator Daschle,
has been working very well with the administration on something that is
vitally important to the country's future. And so we will continue on
these efforts, on the development of the language of the resolution,
that the President, as he said in the Cabinet Room yesterday and as he
said last night at his event for John Thune, he believes that the
Democrats would want to be very supportive of his efforts and join with
him. And there are candidates who belong to the opposite party as the
President who, themselves, are coming out and saying, I am with
President Bush. Which, I think, is proof perfect of the fact that the
President is leading in a nonpartisan way and a bipartisan way that's
attracting support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

Q Aren't you worried that something quite different is happening
with homeland security? That if there are members of the Senate who
want to make a better bill or amend a bill that maybe is not to his
liking, that that means that they are not in favor of security for the
American people?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President has said -- well, we're
going over what the whole briefing was about at the top and there's
nothing I'm going to say any differently. I can repeat it.

Q Why is his tolerance for one area different than for homeland
security?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, because obviously, on homeland security, it's
bogged down and going nowhere. It's been four weeks now that the
Senate has been debating the bill. The action on the resolution is of
a different nature. People are working very well together on the
resolution and the President hopes that will remain the case and
expects that it would be.

But on homeland security, it has come down to a four-week effort
that, despite the bipartisan vote in the House, the Senate does appear
to be lining up differently. And when you ask the President's position
on something, he expresses it.

Q Senator Inouye and Senator Byrd also responded to these
remarks today. Senator Inouye said he was saddened by them, and
Senator Byrd said he was disgusted and accused the President of making
a bumper-sticker slogan out of the war on Iraq. Did they
misunderstand, as well, or is this political opportunism --

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President's remarks were not about the
Democratic Senate, as people may have been led to believe. The
President's remarks were not even about the war in Iraq. The
President's remarks were about homeland security. So, again, the
President urges everybody to take a deep breath and remember why we're
here, and that's to work together.

Q Could I follow, sir? Both of these men suggested -- Byrd
said there are a lot of serious questions out there that haven't been
answered. "We here in the Senate have an obligation to investigate
those questions before we vote on the resolution." Inouye said just as
much. He said it's American to question the President, it's American
to raise these questions. Does the President think there's something
wrong with the Senate asking questions about this policy?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's why the President invited leaders of the
House and the Senate down to the White House in early September, as
soon as the Senate returned from its recess, as soon as the House
returned from its recess, to meet with them, to talk to them, to get
their ideas and thoughts and to say that he was going to work with them
on this. And the process has been a very productive one and the
resolution is moving along and we'll see what the language says. But
it's been a very collaborative process.

Q Just to follow up on the question about the economy, there
hasn't been anything said about the economic conditions in the airline
industry around here, and I just wondered what the White House reaction
to more financial assistance for the airlines is.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, the Congress passed, and the
President signed into law last October a package of approximately --
I think it was $15 billion to help the airline industry. And many of
the airlines are still availing themselves of the funds in this
program. This program remains in existence to help the airlines. And
that was part of the reaction the Congress took that the President
signed into law.

Q -- loan guarantee program or making any changes to help
them?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the program remains in place currently for
the airlines.

MR. FLEISCHER: Ari, yesterday on C-SPAN Congressman Filner and
Congressman Wilson got into it on the war on Iraq. Congressman Filner
said that the -- Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war obtained
biological and chemical weapons technology from the United States. And
Congressman Wilson then accused Filner of hating America and being
viscerally anti-American. I'm wondering if you believe that people who
oppose this war are in any sense anti-American or hate America?

MR. FLEISCHER: Russell, I appreciate the you're giving me the
opportunity to referee somebody else's dispute. But as I said, the
President is going to continue to work with Democrats and Republicans
alike. He respects the opinions of those who agree with him and who
intend to vote for him, and he respects the opinions and the judgments
of those who disagree with him and may vote against him.

Q You indicated that the President has nothing to apologize
for. Will he then perhaps contact Senator Daschle, who seems to be
very upset, to try to explain to him the misinterpretation he sees that
Senator Daschle --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think I've just explained the President's
position.

Q Will he directly contact Senator Daschle --

MR. FLEISCHER: As always, if there are any calls, I'll do my best
to keep you filled in. But you now know what the President believes.

Q Does he have any concern that this disagreement or
misunderstanding is going to cause problems with either the homeland
security resolution or the Iraq --

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that's hard to imagine, because it
would be so against the interest of what everybody has come to
Washington to do, which is to remember that our first responsibility as
Democrats and Republicans alike is to work for the protection of the
country. And that's what the President has called on the Congress to
do, and that's what he is doing, himself.

MR. FLEISCHER: The President tomorrow is going to have a meeting
with the U.S. Attorneys and others involved in the corporate corruption
task force that the President has created. This task force has been
busy, it's been hard at work, and has already moved on a number of
fronts to bring to justice and prosecute people who have stolen, who
have engaged in criminal conduct as the head of corporations or in
positions of responsibility in corporations.

The Security and Exchange Commission has moved aggressively to
force them to give back the money they took that was not theirs to
begin with. And the President tomorrow looks forward to highlighting
what this task force is working on and why it is so important to
sending a signal that corporate misconduct will not be tolerated in
this administration.